top of page

Humankind – A Hopeful History

by Rutger Bregman.





The quote on the page before “Prologue” is by Anton Chekhov: “Man will become better when you show him what he is like”. Following this is the author's statement that this is a book about the idea, which the author termed a radical idea, that most people, deep down, are pretty decent. To expound this “radical” idea, the author presents a number of investigations of historical events that support it. These include the finding that the majority of soldiers in the two World Wars did not shoot, the rescue of Sanne and her toddler by bystanders, soldiers of both sides of the conflict came out of the trenches to celebrate Christmas in 1914, and the twin brothers Constand and Abraham Viljoen saved South Africa from the brink of Civil War and helped end apartheid in 1993. On the stories and experiments that purport to show human beings are basically bad, including the Stanford Experiment by Philip Zimbardo, Stanley Milgram and the Shock Machine, the death of Susan Genovese as reported by the news, the destruction of Easter Island, the broken-window theory, etc., the author went over the mega-analysis and study-over-studies that showed the fallacies of the assumptions in some of these experiments and the biased and selective reporting of the newspapers and magazines which tainted the results. Out of the experience of writing this book, the author offers the readers his ten rules to live by, which he believes will lead to a more hopeful world. While I am glad to learn of the many uplifting stories and believe that most people deep down are kind and decent, I have to admit that I do not feel more hopeful about the future of humankind after reading the book. Although it is heart-warming to learn that the majority of soldiers did not want to kill, it does not negate the fact that a large number of gun violence occurs in the United States, and it has been impossible for Congress, supposedly made up of highly educated and intelligent people, to pass any legislation on gun control. It was shocking that, in 2019, a former Governor told “the former guy” that he was God’s chosen one to lead the United States. In 2018, a US Senator, an avowed Christian and former preacher, told the former guy that “…you're living up to everything I thought you would. You're one heck of a leader and could turn out to be the greatest President”! It certainly does not bode well for legislation to combat climate change when a Senator believed there was sufficient evidence that global warming was a hoax since he could hold a snowball in his hand in February in Washington, D. C. The author seemed to have a low opinion of Machiavelli. However, it is difficult to refute Machiavelli‘s statement in “The Prince” that “Men are so simple of mind, and so much dominated by their immediate needs, that a deceitful man will always find plenty who are ready to be deceived.“ Examples abound: Nazi Germany; January 6, 2021; prison reform in the U.S. halted by the broken-window theory; network anchors spreading Covid misinformation etc. Two rather novel ideas are advanced by the author. One is that, in real democracy, there should not be various governing hierarchies such as mayors, governors and Congress. The power should be given back to the people, who somehow should be able to govern themselves. The other idea is that present-day school structures prohibit the development of students’ innate curiosity, creativity and the new school model should be one that let the kids learn and play by themselves. Examples are given in some towns in Holland and Europe as well as Alaska and successes are claimed. Such models may have shown to be successful on small scales, but I am somewhat skeptical that they work well in large cities, states or nations. In his ten rules to live by, the author finds the golden rule (Confucius) falling short and recommends the platinum rule instead. The platinum rule is attributed to George Bernard Shaw and is a variation of the golden rule. As someone whose native language is not English, I must admit that the platinum rule as quoted by the author is not as easy to understand as the golden rule: Golden rule: “Do not do unto others as you would not have them do unto you.” Platinum rule (as quoted in the book): “Do not do unto others as you would that they should do unto you”. Until I fully understand the Platinum rule, I’ll stick with the Golden rule.


British and German Soldiers fraternizing on the field of battle at the Christmas season of peace and goodwill in 1914 (Source: Wikipedia)




Link of review in amazon.com.






Comments


bottom of page